The Tragedy of Richard III (1593)Richard III is not one of Shakespeare's best works, in fact few of the History plays are really great, but it has its moments. It has one of the most extraordinary openings in all of Literature: GLOUCESTER (Richard was the Duke of Gloucester prior to assuming the Crown): Now is the winter of our discontent
and one of the most recognizable final scenes, when Catesby finds him unhorsed on Bosworth Field (August 22, 1485): CATESBY: Rescue, my Lord of Norfolk, rescue, rescue!
Alarums. Enter KING RICHARD III KING RICHARD III: A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse! CATESBY: Withdraw, my lord; I'll help you to a horse. KING RICHARD III: Slave, I have set my life upon a cast,
Exeunt
In between, Shakespeare achieved something novel by making the "hero' of the play a figure of sheer malevolence. For most of the play this succeeds because Richard is the only character who is really developed and because the very audacity of his schemes and his own joy in them makes him nearly sympathetic. The best expression of this comes when he determines to marry Anne, widow of Prince Edward whom he murdered. Even as he hatches the scheme, he seems truly disbelieving of his own duplicity: GLOUCESTER: Was ever woman in this humour woo'd?
But eventually the play suffers from a couple of structural problems. First, there is no one opposing Richard who is equal to him in terms of stature and dramatic heft. The closest anyone comes is Queen Margaret, widow of the Henry VI and mother Prince Edward, who gets off some pretty funny curses at Richard: QUEEN MARGARET: What were you snarling all before I came,
GLOUCESTER: Have done thy charm, thou hateful wither'd hag! QUEEN MARGARET: And leave out thee? stay, dog, for thou shalt hear
me.
However, she does not have the political strength to counterbalance him and is given little else to do but wander around spewing venom. One of the reasons that Silence of the Lambs works is because the audience, though fascinated and amused by the evil Hannibal Lecter, sides with Clarice Starling. Shakespeare offers no similarly strong and sympathetic rival to Richard, which means that we're pretty much rooting for him the whole time. Even when he has the two princes killed, they are ciphers to us, so it's hard to be horrified by the crime. Which brings us to the second structural flaw; having created such an
engaging monster in Richard, the Bard stumbles badly when he renders him
as a man tormented by conscience just before the battle. This is
depicted after a series of visitations by the ghosts of his victims:
KING RICHARD III starts out of his dream KING RICHARD III: Give me another horse: bind up my wounds.
This sort of self-pity rings hollow given the rest of the play and makes Richard seem more pitiful than pitiable. Ultimately one gets the sense that Shakespeare actually likes Richard, certainly better than the characters surrounding him, but is forced to have him lose by the dictates of history and must tar his image because of the dictates of Elizabethan politics. Elizabeth was after all a descendant of Richard's Lancastrian foe Henry Tudor (Henry VII). Historians (and Josephine Tey in the very fine mystery Daughter of Time--see review) have pretty much demolished the relentlessly negative portrait of Richard, even down to denying that he was physically deformed. Shakespeare's Richard III is intended (like the Thomas More hatchet job on which it's based) to legitimize the current ruling dynasty of England--which had assumed power following this final victory in the war of the Roses--but this propaganda purpose tends to work against the effectiveness of the drama. We're left with a play that is somehow less than the sum of its parts. It's enjoyable but not quite top notch. Still, second tier Shakespeare is better than just about anyone else's best. I particularly recommend Laurence Olivier's 1955 movie version. It certainly beats whatever else you were going to rent the next time you go to the Video Store. (Reviewed:) Grade: (A-) Tweet Websites:-WIKIPEDIA: William Shakespeare - - - -ESSAY: George Orwell Knew What Made Shakespeare Great (Michael Lucchese, April 23, 2025, Providence) -REVIEW ESSAY: Macbeth’s Politics—And Ours: Ralph Fiennes and the Shakespeare Theatre Company bring a timely tragedy of succession to the nation’s capital. (Daniel McCarthy, April 18, 2024, Modern Age) -ESSAY: Shakespeare: Folly, Humanism & Critical Theory (Sam Gilchrist Hall, April/May 2024, Philosophy Now) -ESSAY: Shakespeare’s Allegory of the Fall of Man: Notes on Macbeth and Christian Artistry (Paul Krause, 4/25/23, Voegelin View) -ESSAY: Buddhism’s Dukkha and Hamlet’s Dust: On Shakespeare’s Spiritual Wisdom: Lauren Shufran on How Reading Shakespeare Helped Her Better Read Herself (Lauren Shufran, May 25, 2022, LitHub) -ESSAY: In Defense of Polonius: Shakespeare’s tedious old fool was also a dad just doing his best (Jeffrey R. Wilson June 15, 2022, JStor Daily) -REVIEW: of The Hollow Crown: Shakespeare on How Leaders Rise, Rule, and Fall, by Eliot Cohen (Rebecca Burgess, City Journal) - FILM: - - -REVIEW ESSAY:Shakespeare’s Film Noir: Coen’s “The Tragedy of Macbeth” (Dwight Longenecker|May 6th, 2025, Imaginative Conservative) Book-related and General Links: SHAKESPEARE: -please check the general collection of Shakespeare links above RICHARD III:
FILM:
|
Copyright 1998-2015 Orrin Judd